Antarctic ice melting faster than ever, studies show

monckton wrote:
"Rate of melt has accelerated threefold in last five years and could contribute 25cm to sea-level rises without urgent action..."

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jun/13/antarctic-ice-melting-faster-than-ever-studies-show

"...A separate study warns that unless urgent action is taken in the next decade the melting ice could contribute more than 25cm to a total global sea level rise of more than a metre by 2070..."

Fat chance of that, and double it.

monckton wrote:
"Rate of melt has accelerated threefold in last five years and could contribute 25cm to sea-level rises without urgent action..."

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jun/13/antarctic-ice-melting-faster-than-ever-studies-show

"...A separate study warns that unless urgent action is taken in the next decade the melting ice could contribute more than 25cm to a total global sea level rise of more than a metre by 2070..."

Fat chance of that, and double it.

Jeffvw wrote:

monckton wrote:
"Rate of melt has accelerated threefold in last five years and could contribute 25cm to sea-level rises without urgent action..."

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jun/13/antarctic-ice-melting-faster-than-ever-studies-show

"...A separate study warns that unless urgent action is taken in the next decade the melting ice could contribute more than 25cm to a total global sea level rise of more than a metre by 2070..."

Fat chance of that, and double it.

Interesting. Three years ago, NASA said that Antarctica was gaining ice faster than it was losing it. NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses
Also if as the article states that there is an additional 0.4 mm/year of sea level rise due to more melting ice, why isn't it showing up in the graphs? The station in Antarctica shows a 1.38 mm/year rise for the last 60 years with no acceleration. An additional 0.4 mm/year should have increased it to 1.78 mm/year, but it didn't. No other tidal gauges on the planet show that type of increase.

I would tend to be skeptical of this article.

James___ wrote:

Jeffvw wrote:

monckton wrote:
"Rate of melt has accelerated threefold in last five years and could contribute 25cm to sea-level rises without urgent action..."

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jun/13/antarctic-ice-melting-faster-than-ever-studies-show

"...A separate study warns that unless urgent action is taken in the next decade the melting ice could contribute more than 25cm to a total global sea level rise of more than a metre by 2070..."

Fat chance of that, and double it.

Interesting. Three years ago, NASA said that Antarctica was gaining ice faster than it was losing it. NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses
Also if as the article states that there is an additional 0.4 mm/year of sea level rise due to more melting ice, why isn't it showing up in the graphs? The station in Antarctica shows a 1.38 mm/year rise for the last 60 years with no acceleration. An additional 0.4 mm/year should have increased it to 1.78 mm/year, but it didn't. No other tidal gauges on the planet show that type of increase.

I would tend to be skeptical of this article.

...One thing they usually mention about Antarctica is that it's warming/cooling is because of changing wind patterns because of the ozone hole.
https://m.phys.org/news/2016-07-antarctic-peninsula.html

monckton wrote:
How much?

Antarctica has lost 3 trillion tons of ice in the past 25 years, and that ice loss has accelerated rapidly over the last five years.

In a new study, the most comprehensive to date of the continent's icy status, an international group of 84 researchers analyzed data from multiple satellite surveys, from 1992 to 2017.

They discovered that Antarctica is currently losing ice about three times faster than it did until 2012, climbing to a rate of more than 241 billion tons (219 billion metric tons) per year. Total ice loss during the 25-year period contributed to sea level rise of about 0.3 inches (around 8 millimeters), approximately 40 percent of which — about 0.1 inches (3 mm) — happened in the past five years.

monckton wrote:
Here's a useful comment from another discussion about this article ...

Just to be exceeding clear:
Antarctica as a whole is indeed losing ice.
Many people are citing this NASA page from a few years ago by Zwally et al:

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

This meta study includes that study and the first author of that study is a coauthor of this one. Compared to all of the other studies who looked at the same thing as them, their estimate is way out there and probably an outlier. There are uncertainties in science and that's why we don't come to definite conclusions based on just one group's analysis. Those of you who will only trust what NASA says, NASA also had a press release for this paper on its front page:

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/ramp-up-in-antarctic-ice-loss-speeds-sea-level-rise

James___ wrote:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/greenland-glacier-melt-actually-warped-earths-crust/

monckton wrote:
...../greenland-glacier-melt-actually-warped-earths-crust/.....

We find that old ice (> 1.5 Myr, 1.5 million years) likely exists in two regions: one ∼ 40 km south-west of Dome C along the ice divide to Vostok, close to a secondary dome that we name Little Dome C (LDC), and a second region named North Patch (NP) located 10–30 km north-east of Dome C, in a region where the geothermal flux is apparently relatively low.

Is there 1.5-million-year-old ice near Dome C, Antarctica? (PDF Download Available). Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320816633_Is_there_15-million-year-old_ice_near_Dome_C_Antarctica [accessed Jun 16 2018].

Heat that comes up from the interior of the Earth contributes to the amount of melt on the bottom of the ice sheet

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-01-machine-geothermal-flux-beneath-greenland.html#jCp

monckton wrote:
Well ice flows like a liquid over far less than million year time scales so I'd guess it's pot luck finding a patch that hasn't flowed into the ocean or melted in place over such a long period. People might have trouble finding California in a million years - though there might be some evidence of it in core samples.

But what troubles me, and I'm no scientist so I mainly worry using single syllables, but when you have a ship in a dry dock - and you fill it with water and float the ship. When you open the dry dock gates to the ocean, doesn't that in principle have an immediate though negligible effect on sea level?

monckton wrote:
...... but when you have a ship in a dry dock - and you fill it with water and float the ship. When you open the dry dock gates to the ocean, doesn't that in principle have an immediate though negligible effect on sea level?

James___ wrote:

monckton wrote:
Well ice flows like a liquid over far less than million year time scales so I'd guess it's pot luck finding a patch that hasn't flowed into the ocean or melted in place over such a long period. People might have trouble finding California in a million years - though there might be some evidence of it in core samples.

But what troubles me, and I'm no scientist so I mainly worry using single syllables, but when you have a ship in a dry dock - and you fill it with water and float the ship. When you open the dry dock gates to the ocean, doesn't that in principle have an immediate though negligible effect on sea level?

...They pump sea water into the drydock.

James___ wrote:
In Panama they pump fresh water into the canal.

James___ wrote:
What this does is to hurt the local ecosystem.

James___ wrote:
..With glaciers, the ice at the bottom melts because of heat radiating from the earth.

James___ wrote:
I wonder if all those earthquakes might be causing fractures under the glacier on Greenland.
...Holy Quote...

still learning wrote:

monckton wrote:
...... but when you have a ship in a dry dock - and you fill it with water and float the ship. When you open the dry dock gates to the ocean, doesn't that in principle have an immediate though negligible effect on sea level?

Not exactly. You don't open/remove the gates when the drydock is dry. You let water in first through valves then when it's full you open/move away the gates. At least that's the way it was done when the ship I served on so long ago was refloated at the end of a period of being drydocked.

But yes, the effect on sealevel would be as you describe, just a little slower. In principle.

Into the Night wrote:

still learning wrote:

monckton wrote:
...... but when you have a ship in a dry dock - and you fill it with water and float the ship. When you open the dry dock gates to the ocean, doesn't that in principle have an immediate though negligible effect on sea level?

Not exactly. You don't open/remove the gates when the drydock is dry. You let water in first through valves then when it's full you open/move away the gates. At least that's the way it was done when the ship I served on so long ago was refloated at the end of a period of being drydocked.

But yes, the effect on sealevel would be as you describe, just a little slower. In principle.

You are correct.

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

still learning wrote:

monckton wrote:
...... but when you have a ship in a dry dock - and you fill it with water and float the ship. When you open the dry dock gates to the ocean, doesn't that in principle have an immediate though negligible effect on sea level?

Not exactly. You don't open/remove the gates when the drydock is dry. You let water in first through valves then when it's full you open/move away the gates. At least that's the way it was done when the ship I served on so long ago was refloated at the end of a period of being drydocked.

But yes, the effect on sealevel would be as you describe, just a little slower. In principle.

You are correct.

You are correct.

Into the Night wrote: The hole doesn't cause wind patterns to change. It's quite the opposite. The hole grows or shrinks depending on the wind patterns and the season.

Into the Night wrote:The answer is 'yes'. Sea level would necessarily drop imperceptibly. The sea is now allowed to cover more area (small as it is).

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote: The hole doesn't cause wind patterns to change. It's quite the opposite. The hole grows or shrinks depending on the wind patterns and the season.

Because of the Earth's position in it's present Milankovitch Cycle there is no ozone layer over the Antarctic. Presenting that as something that doesn't happen a the same point in the same cycle shows that historic data isn't relevant to the True Believers.

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:The answer is 'yes'. Sea level would necessarily drop imperceptibly. The sea is now allowed to cover more area (small as it is).

Actually they do have to pump water in since there is a climb that rises above sea level across the Panama isthmus.

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:The answer is 'yes'. Sea level would necessarily drop imperceptibly. The sea is now allowed to cover more area (small as it is).

Actually they do have to pump water in since there is a climb that rises above sea level across the Panama isthmus.

No, they don't. They just open a valve. That water comes from the lake, which is already above sea level. That lake is fed by rivers, just like any lake.

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:The answer is 'yes'. Sea level would necessarily drop imperceptibly. The sea is now allowed to cover more area (small as it is).

Actually they do have to pump water in since there is a climb that rises above sea level across the Panama isthmus.

No, they don't. They just open a valve. That water comes from the lake, which is already above sea level. That lake is fed by rivers, just like any lake.

That lake is fed by rainwater and because of the changing climate there is insufficient rainfall to keep the water available for the extremely large amount of canal traffic.

I believe we are getting near the end of the cyclic warm period and things will return to normal but at his point there are problems. Warm periods are invariably alternating with cooler or even cold periods.

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:The answer is 'yes'. Sea level would necessarily drop imperceptibly. The sea is now allowed to cover more area (small as it is).

Actually they do have to pump water in since there is a climb that rises above sea level across the Panama isthmus.

No, they don't. They just open a valve. That water comes from the lake, which is already above sea level. That lake is fed by rivers, just like any lake.

That lake is fed by rainwater and because of the changing climate there is insufficient rainfall to keep the water available for the extremely large amount of canal traffic.

I believe we are getting near the end of the cyclic warm period and things will return to normal but at his point there are problems. Warm periods are invariably alternating with cooler or even cold periods.

There is plenty of lake water to run the lock system. They have to dump excess water because of it, just like any lock system.

I don't think you realize how little water the lock system demands. Of course, I know you are no sailor either.

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:The answer is 'yes'. Sea level would necessarily drop imperceptibly. The sea is now allowed to cover more area (small as it is).

Actually they do have to pump water in since there is a climb that rises above sea level across the Panama isthmus.

No, they don't. They just open a valve. That water comes from the lake, which is already above sea level. That lake is fed by rivers, just like any lake.

That lake is fed by rainwater and because of the changing climate there is insufficient rainfall to keep the water available for the extremely large amount of canal traffic.

I believe we are getting near the end of the cyclic warm period and things will return to normal but at his point there are problems. Warm periods are invariably alternating with cooler or even cold periods.

There is plenty of lake water to run the lock system. They have to dump excess water because of it, just like any lock system.

I don't think you realize how little water the lock system demands. Of course, I know you are no sailor either.

Firstly, I've been a sailor since I got out of the Air Force.

Wake wrote:
I've raced large sailboats out of the Golden Gate Yacht Club and the San Francisco Yacht Club to Los Angeles and to Catalina and back.

Wake wrote:
I've owned three different boats ending in a Columbia 35 which was a piece of crap. I was the race director for the Aeolian Yacht Club with whom I was awarded a life membership. This is the second oldest yacht club on the bay founded in 1908.

Wake wrote:
Secondly your idea of small amounts of water and mine in the Panama Canal differ a large amount.

Wake wrote:
It requires 52 million gallons of water per transit and there are 40 or more transits per day.

Wake wrote:
This means that each day they use about 8 million cubic meters of water.

Wake wrote:
For the uninformed the forebay of Grand Coulee Dam is only a half million cubic meters.